CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 737Social Media in Health EducationWeb and Library ServicesHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Social Media: A Review and Tutorial of Applications in Medicine and Health Care

Open access
Grajales III, Francisco Jose, Sheps, Samuel, Ho, Kendall, Novak-Lauscher, Helen, Eysenbach, Gunther·2014·Journal of Medical Internet Research
DOI 10.2196/jmir.2912PMC PMC3936280
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Social media are dynamic and interactive computer-mediated communication tools that have high penetration rates in the general population in high-income and middle-income countries. However, in medicine and health care, a large number of stakeholders (eg, clinicians, administrators, professional colleges, academic institutions, ministries of health, among others) are unaware of social media's relevance, potential applications in their day-to-day activities, as well as the inherent risks and how these may be attenuated and mitigated. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a narrative review with the aim to present case studies that illustrate how, where, and why social media are being used in the medical and health care sectors. METHODS: Using a critical-interpretivist framework, we used qualitative methods to synthesize the impact and illustrate, explain, and provide contextual knowledge of the applications and potential implementations of social media in medicine and health care. Both traditional (eg, peer-reviewed) and nontraditional (eg, policies, case studies, and social media content) sources were used, in addition to an environmental scan (using Google and Bing Web searches) of resources. RESULTS: We reviewed, evaluated, and synthesized 76 articles, 44 websites, and 11 policies/reports. Results and case studies are presented according to 10 different categories of social media: (1) blogs (eg, WordPress), (2) microblogs (eg, Twitter), (3) social networking sites (eg, Facebook), (4) professional networking sites (eg, LinkedIn, Sermo), (5) thematic networking sites (eg, 23andMe), (6) wikis (eg, Wikipedia), (7) mashups (eg, HealthMap), (8) collaborative filtering sites (eg, Digg), (9) media sharing sites (eg, YouTube, Slideshare), and others (eg, SecondLife). Four recommendations are provided and explained for stakeholders wishing to engage with social media while attenuating risk: (1) maintain professionalism at all times, (2) be authentic, have fun, and do not be afraid, (3) ask for help, and (4) focus, grab attention, and engage. CONCLUSIONS: The role of social media in the medical and health care sectors is far reaching, and many questions in terms of governance, ethics, professionalism, privacy, confidentiality, and information quality remain unanswered. By following the guidelines presented, professionals have a starting point to engage with social media in a safe and ethical manner. Future research will be required to understand the synergies between social media and evidence-based practice, as well as develop institutional policies that benefit patients, clinicians, public health practitioners, and industry alike.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/jmir.2912

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior reviews focused on e-professionalism of medical students, residents, or physicians, or presented a full spectrum of social media-related challenges and opportunities in the context of medical professionalism of diverse types of health care professionals, but these studies were conducted almost 6 years ago.

    “Prior reviews have focused on the e-professionalism of medical students, residents, or physicians [14], or have presented a full spectrum of SM-related challenges and opportunities in the context of medical professionalism of diverse types of HCPs [15,16], but these studies were conducted almost 6 years ago.”

    From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [16]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Concerns about online searching, privacy, and professionalism have been suggested as barriers to doctors' use of social media.

    “While concerns about online searching [22,23], privacy [24], and professionalism [25] have been suggested as barriers to the use of social media by doctors, the slow adoption of social media also represents a possible lost opportunity for the medical profession at large to engage with patients and the general community.”

    From How Doctors View and Use Social Media: A National Survey (2014) · cites this paper as [25]

  • Other reviews presented a full spectrum of social media-related challenges and opportunities in the context of medical professionalism of diverse types of health care professionals or in the context of social media as an emerging tool in education, but these studies were conducted several years ago.

    “Other reviews presented a full spectrum of SM-related challenges and opportunities in the context of medical professionalism of diverse types of HCPs [15,16] or in the context of SM as an emerging tool in education [132,186], but these studies were conducted several years ago.”

    From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [16]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [22]Giustini D Grajales III FJ Hooker D Using social media to promote evidence based practice 2013-10-27 http://www.slideshare.net/giustinid/cochrane-social-media-workshop-2011
  2. [47]Douglas F Silvey N Twitter journal club 2013-10-27 http://www.twitjc.com/
  3. [56]Frydman GJ Journal of Participatory Medicine 2009 2013-10-27 Patient-driven research: rich opportunities and real risks http://ojs.jopm.org/index.php/jpm/article/view/28/18

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Grajales III, F. J., Sheps, S., Ho, K., Novak-Lauscher, H., & Eysenbach, G.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
ORCID
Ho, Kendall
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2014-02-11
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
e13
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/jmir.2912
PMC
PMC3936280
OpenAlex
W2146029572
Cited by
737
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 13
FWCI
8.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web and Library Services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
social media, healthcare workers, blogs, microblogging, social networking sites, professional networking, wikis, mashups, media sharing, professionalism, privacy and confidentiality, ethics, risk mitigation, health communication, patient engagement, evidence-based practice, health information quality, health management
MeSH terms
Confidentiality, Delivery of Health Care, Medicine, Software, Internet, Consumer Health Information, Blogging, Social Networking, Social Media

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review